Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Opinions on Billy Graham

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    A gun is designed for one purpose: to emit a projectile with killing force. They can be used for target practice, that is true - but a car can also be used to have sex where your parents can't see you. That doesn't make that the purpose of the car.
    So, even though MILLIONS of people own guns, have never killed anybody, have no intent of killing anybody, they should be discriminated against --- um, what's your word when we want to be cautious about being around women not our wives?....

    You are so incredibly inconsistent!
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • I noticed how carpe has conveniently gone off on a tangent with cow poke about cars to avoid this:

      http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post520485

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        So, even though MILLIONS of people own guns, have never killed anybody, have no intent of killing anybody, they should be discriminated against --- um, what's your word when we want to be cautious about being around women not our wives?....

        You are so incredibly inconsistent!
        No - requiring gun registrations, background checks, and a gun database isn't "discriminating" against anyone. No one is denied a gun (unless they do not pass the background check). We all generally agree (I think) that people with mental histories, people with criminal records, and people with a history of domestic abuse, people on the terroist watch list, should not have guns. The only way to reliably identify those people and ensure they do not purchase a weapon that can kill others is to require universal background checks (unless you know of another way to accomplish that?). A law-abiding citizen has no more to fear from a background check than a driver has to fear from a license renewal. The purpose is to identify the potential bad apples. No one is being singled out on the basis of their gender, their color, etc.

        Your parallel to the previous discussion simply doesn't work, but gietting into why gets us back into that discussion, and I've left that one behind at this point. Everything I've wanted to say was said, and returning to it again is pointless.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          I noticed how carpe has conveniently gone off on a tangent with cow poke about cars to avoid this:

          http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post520485
          It's not to avoid your post - it's cause he likes me better than he likes you.

          (And he's really being inconsistent, as you have pointed out)
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Thank you for making the argument for the Billy Graham rule for me. It is a reasonable control for a potentially dangerous situation, not because we think everyone is untrustworthy.

            I now pat myself on the back and walk away smugly.
            See my response to CP.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              ...Everything I've wanted to say was said, and returning to it again is pointless.
              So, lemme guess.. you're gonna totally stop commenting on this again one more time. (for a few hours )
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                See my response to CP.
                You are merely trying to wiggle out of your hypocrisy again. Everyone can see it Carpe. You are all for restricting guns and making every gun owner be treated like a potential criminal just to hopefully prevent a few actual criminals from getting a hold of guns. That's fine. But then you complain when we want to take precautions against potentially dangerous situations between men and women because a few bad ones are out there (on both sides)

                Just be consistent. If you think it is fair to make everyone suffer more regulations on guns because there are some bad people out there, then accept that being precautions with every woman to prevent temptation or the appearance of evil and stop scandals before they begins is also a good idea.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  No - requiring gun registrations, background checks, and a gun database isn't "discriminating" against anyone.
                  Woah, hold on a minute... You're lumping "registration" with "background checks" and "gun databases".

                  I am a concealed carry licensee - I can walk into a gun store, fill out the transfer paperwork, and buy any legal weapon I want - it doesn't have to be "registered" or entered into a "gun database".

                  I have already passed a background check as part of my concealed carry license. I don't have a problem with background checks, and preventing "bad people" from purchasing weapons. But making me "license" my firearm(s) like I license my vehicles is just not the same at all.

                  I really don't think you know very much about guns and purchases and stuff.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    You are merely trying to wiggle out of your hypocrisy again. Everyone can see it Carpe. You are all for restricting guns and making every gun owner be treated like a potential criminal just to hopefully prevent a few actual criminals from getting a hold of guns. That's fine. But then you complain when we want to take precautions against potentially dangerous situations between men and women because a few bad ones are out there (on both sides)

                    Just be consistent. If you think it is fair to make everyone suffer more regulations on guns because there are some bad people out there, then accept that being precautions with every woman to prevent temptation or the appearance of evil and stop scandals before they begins is also a good idea.
                    I think he got tripped up in the "licensing vehicles" as opposed to "licensing drivers", and can't seem to keep those things straight.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      So, lemme guess.. you're gonna totally stop commenting on this again one more time. (for a few hours )
                      On the Graham Rule - yes - I'm done. I;'ve been reading the subsequent posts, but I won't be responding further.

                      On the gun issue - not yet.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        You are merely trying to wiggle out of your hypocrisy again. Everyone can see it Carpe. You are all for restricting guns and making every gun owner be treated like a potential criminal just to hopefully prevent a few actual criminals from getting a hold of guns. That's fine. But then you complain when we want to take precautions against potentially dangerous situations between men and women because a few bad ones are out there (on both sides)

                        Just be consistent. If you think it is fair to make everyone suffer more regulations on guns because there are some bad people out there, then accept that being precautions with every woman to prevent temptation or the appearance of evil and stop scandals before they begins is also a good idea.
                        No - a background check is not "treating a gun owner as a criminal." Background checks are required for teachers to get a teaching position. I had to have one to adopt our boys. They are required (on steroids) to get many government positions. It takes a fairly pessimistic point of view to see any of these as "treating someone as a potential criminal." Rather than treating someone as a "potential criminal," it is the only process available to us to determine who the criminals actually are =- and prevent them purchasing firearms.

                        If you think otherwise, then please provide your alternative plan for how we identify those who DO have mental issues, criminal backgrounds, or a history of domestic abuse.

                        My position is actually quite consistent - since the background check does not, as I noted, discriminate by gender, race, or any other personal attribute. It simply says, "your background has to exclude these things for you to qualify."
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          No - a background check is not "treating a gun owner as a criminal." Background checks are required for teachers to get a teaching position. I had to have one to adopt our boys. They are required (on steroids) to get many government positions. It takes a fairly pessimistic point of view to see any of these as "treating someone as a potential criminal." Rather than treating someone as a "potential criminal," it is the only process available to us to determine who the criminals actually are =- and prevent them purchasing firearms.
                          Here's what's happening --- due to a bunch of wacko liberal idiot policies, the shooter in Florida SHOULD have had a criminal record but didn't, because they wanted to "keep him in the schoolroom, and out of the courtroom". "The child" SHOULD have had a criminal record, which supposedly would have prevented him from buying a firearm.

                          (Even the "keeping him in the schoolroom" was a terribly failed effort)

                          So much for the success of "the background check".
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Woah, hold on a minute... You're lumping "registration" with "background checks" and "gun databases".

                            I am a concealed carry licensee - I can walk into a gun store, fill out the transfer paperwork, and buy any legal weapon I want - it doesn't have to be "registered" or entered into a "gun database".
                            That is the way it is today. I think a national gun database is a good idea. Frankly, I also think it would be a good idea to hold the registered gun owner equally liable for misuse of their weapon as the person who uses it illegally. I wonder how many guns would quickly be locked up safely if thew owners knew that, if someone took it and committed a crime, they would share the same penalty as the person commiting the crime?

                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            I have already passed a background check as part of my concealed carry license. I don't have a problem with background checks, and preventing "bad people" from purchasing weapons. But making me "license" my firearm(s) like I license my vehicles is just not the same at all.
                            If you have already passed the background check, then what are you griping about? I didn't say someone needs to repeat the background check for each and every purchase (though I think they should have an expiration date on them).

                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            I really don't think you know very much about guns and purchases and stuff.
                            I think you'd be surprised. The fact that you keep confusing statement I make about how it currently IS with how I think it SHOULD be is not really a problem with my understanding, old man...

                            Currently: background checks are required for licensed gun stores. They are not required (but sometimes happen) for online sales, personal sales, and most gun shows. I find that ridiculous and believe it should be universal.

                            Currently: there is no database for guns sales/transfers - and I think there should be.

                            Currently: there is no funding permitted for gun research (if the outcome of the research can in any way be used to make a case for gun controls). That effectively shuts down neutral research. I think that's ridiculous and it shoukd be reversed.

                            Further positions I cannot take a firm stand on until that research is done. Many other things make "common sense" to me (e.g., gun free zones, making bump stock illegal, limiting magazine sizes, limiting access to assault rifles, etc.). But I don't actually KNOW if any of those things would make a difference (you you folks don't know they wouldn't) because all we have is research funded by groups with a vested interest in the outcome.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Here's what's happening --- due to a bunch of wacko liberal idiot policies, the shooter in Florida SHOULD have had a criminal record but didn't, because they wanted to "keep him in the schoolroom, and out of the courtroom". "The child" SHOULD have had a criminal record, which supposedly would have prevented him from buying a firearm.

                              (Even the "keeping him in the schoolroom" was a terribly failed effort)

                              So much for the success of "the background check".
                              So the argument you are making is, "because the system doesn't work 100% of the time - it's useless." By that argument, we need to eliminate all laws - they don't work 100% of the time. You should probably get rid of your car - I'm sure it has had a moment now and then when it didn't work. We need to get rid of courts, obviously, because sometimes innocent people are convicted and guilty people are freed. We should eliminate medicine too, because sometimes the doctors make mistakes.

                              That argument just doesn't work, CP. We don't run any other part of our lives but such an extreme view. For the record, I agree the system failed with this child. Based on what I've read since our previous discussion, it seems there should have been several times when he should have been arrested for his actions. Had he been, and had his firearm been registered in a national database, the existence of the gun and the change in his legal status could have popped a red flag, prompting legal action to remove the gun from his possession. But no one arrested him, and no such database exists. So - 17 kids are dead.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                If you have already passed the background check, then what are you griping about?
                                Hmmm... you're conversing, and I'm griping, eh?

                                The "child" shooter in Florida passed the background check because of failed liberal polices - own it.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X